Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Well where do I start? I love the fact that there is no substantial synopsis for this film, a lot have just gone with "the ongoing adventures of Newt Scamander" or similarly vague offerings.
It's difficult to separate them from their Harry Potter ancestry. They are of course the same universe. If you can sever the links then the films aren't too bad, but they're not amazing either. The other issue is that with the links you're obviously given lots of issues with continuity and timelines.
After only given a brief sighting of Grindelwald in the first film we're sold a creepy and scary version in this one very early on. His suspension during the transfer to the coach gives him the sinister grace of a dementor. This leads to the first of two problems for me. Abernathy in this whole introductory section is odd and you can tell something is up, so when we're eventually presented with that was happening it wasn't a surprise.
Here's problem two. Once Grindelwald is secured in the coach the rest of the sequence takes place outside, in the dark, in a storm. Very atmospheric with striking shots... most of which you can't see because of the lightning and rain. Everything is so fast that it's just a blur. It seems to be a popular occurrence recently and I will never understand why you would spend so much money on them when you can't see what's happening. One of the bits that you can see properly is the ghostly face of Grindelwald appearing in the coach window... which is a shame because it felt like it was awfully done and could have used some covering up.
As a quick note while I remember, I would like to acknowledge the impressive advances in wizarding technology. Early roombas and Fitbits. Great job!
Looking back over the notes most of them were about characters. Barely any about storyline. Just one thing that seemed completely out of place/inaccurate, and that was Minerva McGonagall. I'm not well enough versed in Harry Potter history but looking at the chatter I don't think her timeline matches with that of the film... but I'll leave that to the super nerds. If it is inaccurate it would have been very easy to avoid so it seems ridiculous to have had in at all.
The fluffy, feathered and scaly friends also need an honourable mention. *gets out soap box and steps up* Nifflers rule. I will fight anyone who thinks otherwise. Although, bad film! Getting my hopes up and then dashing them. You give them leeway with the animation considering they're fantastic beasts, but the only creatures that don't really have a decent presence on screen are the matagots that protect the Ministry of Magic. Even as hairless catlike creatures you'd expect something a little more impressive than what feels like CGI with a layer of detail missing.
I'm also intrigued by the phoenix. Is it Fawkes? How did Albus get his? Of course I could have missed things that answer all of the questions I have about it.
After reviewing all my notes I can (un)happily say that almost all of the women come off quite badly in this film. Bunty, Newt's assistant (I hope that was her name, she was fairly forgetable other than this point), came over as a little creepy with her comments that clearly show her affections for him. Queenie has a bit of a transformation in this one. She's still got her optimistic outlook but she's devolving a bit. Tina is taken by jealousy, which seems a little off for her. The newest addition of Nagini came out relatively unscathed and I'm hoping for an intriguing ongoing story for her.
The male characters came off slightly better. Jacob and Flamel were some welcome relief from this bleak installment of the franchise. Hats off to Callum Turner and Joshua Shea though. They both managed to pick up the Newt mannerisms really well. I can appreciate it even though it's one of the things I dislike about Fantastic Beasts, the constant head tilting.
Jude Law as Albus Dumbledore still doesn't sit quite right, but he made a reasonable job of it. He doesn't quite hold the same presence in the scenes as you'd expect him to for the man he becomes though. Everyone also got into a tizzy about his sexuality. Who cares? Whether he is or isn't gay makes no difference to the movie whatsoever. Just enjoy a film a don't worry about it until it's relevant.
It really is difficult to sum the story line up for this one. There's a reason that everyone has generalised the synopsis. It's just a lot of nothing in particular. It's part two of five. There didn't really seem to be a lot apart from filler. What I can tell you is that the first time I saw this (I went to the midnight screening at Vue originally) I fell asleep through a significant chunk in the middle and yet I still came out with the same understanding and enjoyment as I did after the second time.
What you should do
You're going to have to see it at some point if you're into the HP universe. Just a statement of fact there!
Movie thing you wish you could take home
That magic spell for collapsing all my belongings into a couple of trunks, I'm assuming it would come in handy for cleaning as well.
It's difficult to separate them from their Harry Potter ancestry. They are of course the same universe. If you can sever the links then the films aren't too bad, but they're not amazing either. The other issue is that with the links you're obviously given lots of issues with continuity and timelines.
After only given a brief sighting of Grindelwald in the first film we're sold a creepy and scary version in this one very early on. His suspension during the transfer to the coach gives him the sinister grace of a dementor. This leads to the first of two problems for me. Abernathy in this whole introductory section is odd and you can tell something is up, so when we're eventually presented with that was happening it wasn't a surprise.
Here's problem two. Once Grindelwald is secured in the coach the rest of the sequence takes place outside, in the dark, in a storm. Very atmospheric with striking shots... most of which you can't see because of the lightning and rain. Everything is so fast that it's just a blur. It seems to be a popular occurrence recently and I will never understand why you would spend so much money on them when you can't see what's happening. One of the bits that you can see properly is the ghostly face of Grindelwald appearing in the coach window... which is a shame because it felt like it was awfully done and could have used some covering up.
As a quick note while I remember, I would like to acknowledge the impressive advances in wizarding technology. Early roombas and Fitbits. Great job!
Looking back over the notes most of them were about characters. Barely any about storyline. Just one thing that seemed completely out of place/inaccurate, and that was Minerva McGonagall. I'm not well enough versed in Harry Potter history but looking at the chatter I don't think her timeline matches with that of the film... but I'll leave that to the super nerds. If it is inaccurate it would have been very easy to avoid so it seems ridiculous to have had in at all.
The fluffy, feathered and scaly friends also need an honourable mention. *gets out soap box and steps up* Nifflers rule. I will fight anyone who thinks otherwise. Although, bad film! Getting my hopes up and then dashing them. You give them leeway with the animation considering they're fantastic beasts, but the only creatures that don't really have a decent presence on screen are the matagots that protect the Ministry of Magic. Even as hairless catlike creatures you'd expect something a little more impressive than what feels like CGI with a layer of detail missing.
I'm also intrigued by the phoenix. Is it Fawkes? How did Albus get his? Of course I could have missed things that answer all of the questions I have about it.
After reviewing all my notes I can (un)happily say that almost all of the women come off quite badly in this film. Bunty, Newt's assistant (I hope that was her name, she was fairly forgetable other than this point), came over as a little creepy with her comments that clearly show her affections for him. Queenie has a bit of a transformation in this one. She's still got her optimistic outlook but she's devolving a bit. Tina is taken by jealousy, which seems a little off for her. The newest addition of Nagini came out relatively unscathed and I'm hoping for an intriguing ongoing story for her.
The male characters came off slightly better. Jacob and Flamel were some welcome relief from this bleak installment of the franchise. Hats off to Callum Turner and Joshua Shea though. They both managed to pick up the Newt mannerisms really well. I can appreciate it even though it's one of the things I dislike about Fantastic Beasts, the constant head tilting.
Jude Law as Albus Dumbledore still doesn't sit quite right, but he made a reasonable job of it. He doesn't quite hold the same presence in the scenes as you'd expect him to for the man he becomes though. Everyone also got into a tizzy about his sexuality. Who cares? Whether he is or isn't gay makes no difference to the movie whatsoever. Just enjoy a film a don't worry about it until it's relevant.
It really is difficult to sum the story line up for this one. There's a reason that everyone has generalised the synopsis. It's just a lot of nothing in particular. It's part two of five. There didn't really seem to be a lot apart from filler. What I can tell you is that the first time I saw this (I went to the midnight screening at Vue originally) I fell asleep through a significant chunk in the middle and yet I still came out with the same understanding and enjoyment as I did after the second time.
What you should do
You're going to have to see it at some point if you're into the HP universe. Just a statement of fact there!
Movie thing you wish you could take home
That magic spell for collapsing all my belongings into a couple of trunks, I'm assuming it would come in handy for cleaning as well.
Janeeny (200 KP) rated A Deadly Education: Lesson One of the Scholomance in Books
Jun 18, 2021
I received an ARC of this book in exchange for an honest review.
It’s taken me three days to write this review, as I’ve tried to find something clever and witty to say about it when the simple truth is, I like this book and it’s hard to explain why without giving too much away.
It has all the elements you’d expect and enjoy from a fantasy novel, and even though most people I know who enjoy this genre feel it bridges the gap between YA and adult fiction, I should still probably say that the only thing that gives it away that this is a YA book is the teenage protagonist. Novik has gone with the canny technique of a YA voice and theme with an adult backdrop. (I know it’s school but I don’t think even Harry Potter had THIS many near-death experiences)
The protagonist is a girl called El who goes to a special school called The Scholomance. What makes this school so special is the fact that it’s for magically gifted children, it’s held between realities, there are no teachers, the school itself assesses your progress and provides your work accordingly. However, where there are magical beings there are beasties and there are some right nasty ones in this school. Luckily El is constantly rescued by resident hero Orion, which she is especially aggrieved by, considering that El herself is potentially the most dangerous thing in the school.
Oddly enough, one of my favourite aspects of this book was the one thing that most reviewers found annoying about it, and that’s what they’re calling the ‘info-dumping’. There’s a strong feeling amongst the reviews that there is constantly just too much information being thrown at you. In hindsight, I can see their point, and if you’re a fan of Novik and were expecting her usual standard this may be annoying. However, for me as my first foray into her style, I didn’t mind it. In fact, I think it contributed to her world-building and just made me even keener to read the next book. Maybe now that the base is established the next book won’t have so much of it, but it didn’t detract from the story at all for me. I can’t help it, I like information. Sure if a bunch of schoolroom chairs have just come to life and chased after our main characters I want to know how that turns out as quickly as possible, but I do also like to know why.
There is so much going on here, that not only is Novik giving you an entertaining story but it feels like she’s laying the groundwork for what could be (hopefully) an epic new series. El is at times annoying and frustrating, but refreshingly consistent. Orion is the reluctant hero, despite being provided with a bit of background for him he still feels a little 2 dimensional to me, but I hope he’ll be fleshed out a bit more in the next book. They are supported by a range of diverse characters, speaking of which . . .
I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the controversy around the book regarding some racist claims. I am by no means qualified to comment on this point, but what I would say is that the issue is a sin of omission rather than intention, and has been addressed by the author. If this is an issue that has you reconsidering adding this to your TBR pile, please do read a broad selection of reviews before making up your mind. As it is a fantastic book and could potentially be my favourite new series
It’s taken me three days to write this review, as I’ve tried to find something clever and witty to say about it when the simple truth is, I like this book and it’s hard to explain why without giving too much away.
It has all the elements you’d expect and enjoy from a fantasy novel, and even though most people I know who enjoy this genre feel it bridges the gap between YA and adult fiction, I should still probably say that the only thing that gives it away that this is a YA book is the teenage protagonist. Novik has gone with the canny technique of a YA voice and theme with an adult backdrop. (I know it’s school but I don’t think even Harry Potter had THIS many near-death experiences)
The protagonist is a girl called El who goes to a special school called The Scholomance. What makes this school so special is the fact that it’s for magically gifted children, it’s held between realities, there are no teachers, the school itself assesses your progress and provides your work accordingly. However, where there are magical beings there are beasties and there are some right nasty ones in this school. Luckily El is constantly rescued by resident hero Orion, which she is especially aggrieved by, considering that El herself is potentially the most dangerous thing in the school.
Oddly enough, one of my favourite aspects of this book was the one thing that most reviewers found annoying about it, and that’s what they’re calling the ‘info-dumping’. There’s a strong feeling amongst the reviews that there is constantly just too much information being thrown at you. In hindsight, I can see their point, and if you’re a fan of Novik and were expecting her usual standard this may be annoying. However, for me as my first foray into her style, I didn’t mind it. In fact, I think it contributed to her world-building and just made me even keener to read the next book. Maybe now that the base is established the next book won’t have so much of it, but it didn’t detract from the story at all for me. I can’t help it, I like information. Sure if a bunch of schoolroom chairs have just come to life and chased after our main characters I want to know how that turns out as quickly as possible, but I do also like to know why.
There is so much going on here, that not only is Novik giving you an entertaining story but it feels like she’s laying the groundwork for what could be (hopefully) an epic new series. El is at times annoying and frustrating, but refreshingly consistent. Orion is the reluctant hero, despite being provided with a bit of background for him he still feels a little 2 dimensional to me, but I hope he’ll be fleshed out a bit more in the next book. They are supported by a range of diverse characters, speaking of which . . .
I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the controversy around the book regarding some racist claims. I am by no means qualified to comment on this point, but what I would say is that the issue is a sin of omission rather than intention, and has been addressed by the author. If this is an issue that has you reconsidering adding this to your TBR pile, please do read a broad selection of reviews before making up your mind. As it is a fantastic book and could potentially be my favourite new series
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Supernova (2020) in Movies
Jun 24, 2021
Tucci and Firth - an acting masterclass (1 more)
A slow and very moving study of a difficult subject
“You’re not supposed to mourn someone before they die.”
Sam (Colin Firth) is a famous concert pianist. Tusker (Stanley Tucci) a famous author. But Tusker has Alzheimer's, and is starting to go downhill. The loving couple take their battered motorhome on a last great adventure round England's Lake District, taking in a visit with Sam's sister Lil while there.
Positives:
- "Love is a many splendored thing" as the song goes, and seldom has it been expressed so poignantly as in "Supernova". Harry Macqueen's script builds up a truly loving relationship between the two men. Any homophobes should be strapped into chairs and forced to watch this movie: perhaps that would cause some semblance of understanding to emerge in their petrified brains. (Who am I kidding?)
- Supporting the story brilliantly are Colin Firth and Stanley Tucci. Tucci has been in so many great movies over the years that it's no surprise to me that his acting moved me to tears. But when I think of Colin Firth (Hampshire's own! He went to my daughter's college!) my mind tends to skip over his dramatic roles in films like "The King's Speech" and "A Single Man". Instead, I tend to dwell on his lighter, fluffier roles, like "Bridget Jones" and "Mamma Mia". As such, I forget what a truly great actor he is. And here, he hits it out of the park! With all the Covid release confusion, I'm not sure whether "Supernova" is up for awards next year, or whether it has been cruelly overlooked from last year's awards. I truly hope it's the former, since both men are at the peak of their craft here.
- The cinematography by Dick Pope is beautiful. To be fair, you could put a Super 8 camera in the Lake District on a sunny day and it would look great. But the camera work here makes it look its best.
Negatives:
- Not really a negative for me, but it's about as far away from an "action film" as you can get. "Fast and Furious 9" is showing next door! This is an extremely slow, character-led piece that won't be for everyone.
- I wasn't totally convinced by the symptoms shown. Early in the film, Tusker wanders off in a daze, but seems comparatively compos mentis for most of the rest of the film. Perhaps this is just my ignorance of the randomness and unpredictability of the disease (anyone in the know - please enlighten me).
Summary Thoughts on "Supernova": As is often the way with cinema, genre films can come along like London buses. First this month we had Anthony Hopkin's Oscar-winning turn as a dementia sufferer in "The Father", and now "Supernova" appears. This takes a different approach to the subject. Not as flashy or clever. But no less effective at portraying the tragedy that this wretched disease wreaks with relationships, often making them a living hell.
Having straight actors play gay characters will no doubt provoke the usual outcry from the cancel culture. But if it's good acting - and it is a masterclass from the two leads in my book - such that you BELIEVE the story, then that's the whole point of the craft.
Like "The Father", this is a tough watch. I felt pretty well emotionally wrung-out by the end of it. But, it was well worth the wait in my book.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the "One Mann's Movies" review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/24/supernova-youre-not-supposed-to-mourn-someone-before-they-die/. Thanks.)
Positives:
- "Love is a many splendored thing" as the song goes, and seldom has it been expressed so poignantly as in "Supernova". Harry Macqueen's script builds up a truly loving relationship between the two men. Any homophobes should be strapped into chairs and forced to watch this movie: perhaps that would cause some semblance of understanding to emerge in their petrified brains. (Who am I kidding?)
- Supporting the story brilliantly are Colin Firth and Stanley Tucci. Tucci has been in so many great movies over the years that it's no surprise to me that his acting moved me to tears. But when I think of Colin Firth (Hampshire's own! He went to my daughter's college!) my mind tends to skip over his dramatic roles in films like "The King's Speech" and "A Single Man". Instead, I tend to dwell on his lighter, fluffier roles, like "Bridget Jones" and "Mamma Mia". As such, I forget what a truly great actor he is. And here, he hits it out of the park! With all the Covid release confusion, I'm not sure whether "Supernova" is up for awards next year, or whether it has been cruelly overlooked from last year's awards. I truly hope it's the former, since both men are at the peak of their craft here.
- The cinematography by Dick Pope is beautiful. To be fair, you could put a Super 8 camera in the Lake District on a sunny day and it would look great. But the camera work here makes it look its best.
Negatives:
- Not really a negative for me, but it's about as far away from an "action film" as you can get. "Fast and Furious 9" is showing next door! This is an extremely slow, character-led piece that won't be for everyone.
- I wasn't totally convinced by the symptoms shown. Early in the film, Tusker wanders off in a daze, but seems comparatively compos mentis for most of the rest of the film. Perhaps this is just my ignorance of the randomness and unpredictability of the disease (anyone in the know - please enlighten me).
Summary Thoughts on "Supernova": As is often the way with cinema, genre films can come along like London buses. First this month we had Anthony Hopkin's Oscar-winning turn as a dementia sufferer in "The Father", and now "Supernova" appears. This takes a different approach to the subject. Not as flashy or clever. But no less effective at portraying the tragedy that this wretched disease wreaks with relationships, often making them a living hell.
Having straight actors play gay characters will no doubt provoke the usual outcry from the cancel culture. But if it's good acting - and it is a masterclass from the two leads in my book - such that you BELIEVE the story, then that's the whole point of the craft.
Like "The Father", this is a tough watch. I felt pretty well emotionally wrung-out by the end of it. But, it was well worth the wait in my book.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the "One Mann's Movies" review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/24/supernova-youre-not-supposed-to-mourn-someone-before-they-die/. Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Instant Karma (2021) in Movies
Sep 6, 2021
Neat idea for a movie (1 more)
Samantha Belle
Script is rambling and needs much tightening up (1 more)
Acting is often sub-par
You’ve got to admire the effort here.
Positives:
- There’s a quirky joy behind the story and it did keep me watching until the end to find out how it turned out.
- I enjoyed Samantha Belle’s performance. Whilst she has a few rough acting edges, she channelled a sort of cross between Ally Sheedy and Geena Davis that was cute. Elsewhere in the cast, Karl Haas (as Harry, the homeless guy) and Keegan Luther as the luckless Emilio gave, for me, the most naturalistic (and therefore best) performances.
- There’s an ending that, while feeling inconclusive and circuitous, did at least leave me with a smile on my face. (I hope permission was gained for the use of the name in the end titles!).
Negatives:
- If you watch, for example, “The Father” you quickly appreciate that the reason Anthony Hopkins and Olivia Colman are so GREAT in the movie is you NEVER get the feeling that they are acting. Unfortunately, in “Instant Karma”, while I appreciate that all of the cast are giving of their best, almost EVERYONE appears to be acting. While it’s seldom ‘hold your head in your hands’ terrible, the chasm of skill between this cast and the top-flight is vast. - - The script doesn’t help this by introducing a torrent of different ‘rider’ cast, many of whom should never have been put in front of a camera to deliver lines.
- While the story has potential, the script rambles around and never quite decides what genre it’s going for. Drama? It’s not dramatic enough. Thriller? It tries to go that way in the final reel, but never convincingly (and WHATEVER HAPPENED TO POOR EMILIO????). Comedy? Humourous at times maybe, but never laugh-out-loud funny. (It actually might have made a pretty good comedy – a variant on the “Do you think I asked for a million ducks?” bar joke! This idea (C) Bob Mann 2021!).
- The script is also incomplete and tonally inconsistent. There are sub-plots (e.g. Emilio’s request for the money) that are never fleshed out. And Samantha seems to veer from excitable and supportive sexy wife to full-on psycho-bitch-marital-nightmare from scene to scene.
- When you’ve got a loose script, and a cast with limited experience, don’t over-egg the pudding! The movie is 115 minutes long: I would personally have gone to town in the editing room and got it down to sub-90 minutes. The overall concoction would have been much better. As it is, we have far too many instances of “Karma” in the first half of the film and some ‘filler’ scenes that go on and on (and on and on) without adding anything to the story. For example, there is a ‘spending spree’ montage that, while very nicely put together, goes on for almost two whole minutes. Chop, chop, chop!
- Technically, the sound needs more work. There’s a lot of noise on the soundtrack and some poorly mixed music cues. Lighting inside the car was also an issue in some scenes.
Summary Thoughts on “Instant Karma”: I enjoyed watching this one more than my long list of “suggested improvements” might suggest.
I remain in awe of a team, with a limited budget, being able to project manage a movie like this to completion. And especially since this was filmed during the pandemic and in the searing heat of an Arizona summer, with the temperature rising to 117 degrees. As such, I hate to fire as many negatives at the film as I have, but I have to review things on a level playing field. With so many rough edges, I can’t give it a better rating than I have, but it gets an A+ for effort, and it’s far from being the worst film I’ve seen so far in 2021.
(For the full graphical review, check out #onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks)
- There’s a quirky joy behind the story and it did keep me watching until the end to find out how it turned out.
- I enjoyed Samantha Belle’s performance. Whilst she has a few rough acting edges, she channelled a sort of cross between Ally Sheedy and Geena Davis that was cute. Elsewhere in the cast, Karl Haas (as Harry, the homeless guy) and Keegan Luther as the luckless Emilio gave, for me, the most naturalistic (and therefore best) performances.
- There’s an ending that, while feeling inconclusive and circuitous, did at least leave me with a smile on my face. (I hope permission was gained for the use of the name in the end titles!).
Negatives:
- If you watch, for example, “The Father” you quickly appreciate that the reason Anthony Hopkins and Olivia Colman are so GREAT in the movie is you NEVER get the feeling that they are acting. Unfortunately, in “Instant Karma”, while I appreciate that all of the cast are giving of their best, almost EVERYONE appears to be acting. While it’s seldom ‘hold your head in your hands’ terrible, the chasm of skill between this cast and the top-flight is vast. - - The script doesn’t help this by introducing a torrent of different ‘rider’ cast, many of whom should never have been put in front of a camera to deliver lines.
- While the story has potential, the script rambles around and never quite decides what genre it’s going for. Drama? It’s not dramatic enough. Thriller? It tries to go that way in the final reel, but never convincingly (and WHATEVER HAPPENED TO POOR EMILIO????). Comedy? Humourous at times maybe, but never laugh-out-loud funny. (It actually might have made a pretty good comedy – a variant on the “Do you think I asked for a million ducks?” bar joke! This idea (C) Bob Mann 2021!).
- The script is also incomplete and tonally inconsistent. There are sub-plots (e.g. Emilio’s request for the money) that are never fleshed out. And Samantha seems to veer from excitable and supportive sexy wife to full-on psycho-bitch-marital-nightmare from scene to scene.
- When you’ve got a loose script, and a cast with limited experience, don’t over-egg the pudding! The movie is 115 minutes long: I would personally have gone to town in the editing room and got it down to sub-90 minutes. The overall concoction would have been much better. As it is, we have far too many instances of “Karma” in the first half of the film and some ‘filler’ scenes that go on and on (and on and on) without adding anything to the story. For example, there is a ‘spending spree’ montage that, while very nicely put together, goes on for almost two whole minutes. Chop, chop, chop!
- Technically, the sound needs more work. There’s a lot of noise on the soundtrack and some poorly mixed music cues. Lighting inside the car was also an issue in some scenes.
Summary Thoughts on “Instant Karma”: I enjoyed watching this one more than my long list of “suggested improvements” might suggest.
I remain in awe of a team, with a limited budget, being able to project manage a movie like this to completion. And especially since this was filmed during the pandemic and in the searing heat of an Arizona summer, with the temperature rising to 117 degrees. As such, I hate to fire as many negatives at the film as I have, but I have to review things on a level playing field. With so many rough edges, I can’t give it a better rating than I have, but it gets an A+ for effort, and it’s far from being the worst film I’ve seen so far in 2021.
(For the full graphical review, check out #onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Viceroy's House (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The 80:20 Rule.
India, 1947. Churchill’s government has sent Lord Grantham – – sorry — Lord Louis Mountbatten of Burma (Hugh Bonneville, “The Monuments Men“) as the new Viceroy. His mission is to make sure he is the last ever Viceroy, for India is to be returned to independence. But racial tensions between the Hindu and minority Muslim populations are brittle and deteriorating fast. Can India survive as a single country, or will Mountbatten be forced to partition the country along religious lines to avoid civil-war and countless deaths?
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah’s victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: “Worthy but dull” was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldn’t have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (“Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (“The X Files”) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as General Ismay (Mountbatten’s chief of staff); Simon Callow (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) as Radcliffe (the drawer of ‘the new map’); and Om Puri (“The Hundred Foot Journey“) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten’s daughter is Lily Travers (“Kingsman: The Secret Service“): Virginia McKenna’s granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville’s Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson’s (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I’m sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten’s man-servant. And no, that isn’t a euphemism…. I’m talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for “East is East”) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend it like Beckham”), Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the “Lion“-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a ‘real-life photograph’ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough’s “Gandhi”. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that’s just my view….. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”.
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah’s victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: “Worthy but dull” was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldn’t have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (“Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (“The X Files”) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as General Ismay (Mountbatten’s chief of staff); Simon Callow (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) as Radcliffe (the drawer of ‘the new map’); and Om Puri (“The Hundred Foot Journey“) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten’s daughter is Lily Travers (“Kingsman: The Secret Service“): Virginia McKenna’s granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville’s Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson’s (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I’m sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten’s man-servant. And no, that isn’t a euphemism…. I’m talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for “East is East”) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend it like Beckham”), Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the “Lion“-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a ‘real-life photograph’ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough’s “Gandhi”. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that’s just my view….. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Vaughn and Golding cross the pond to deliver more of the same.
You would probably need to be living under a rock not to know that “Kingsman: The Golden Circle” is the follow-up film to Matthew Vaughn and Jane Goldman’s highly successful 2015 offering “Kingsman: The Secret Service”: a raucous, violent and rude entry into the spy-caper genre. And the sequel is more of the same: why mess with a crowd-pleasing formula?
The fledgling agent Eggsy (Taron Egerton (“Eddie the Eagle“), curiously called “Eggy” at various points in the film for reasons I didn’t understand) is now the new “Galahad” following the demise in the first film of the original, played by Colin Firth (“Magic in the Moonlight“, “Bridget Jones’ Baby“). But just as he’s getting into his stride the whole Kingsman organisation, now headed by Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as Arthur , is ripped apart by an evil drugs cartel called “The Golden Circle” headed by smiling but deadly Poppy (Juliane Moore, “Still Alice”).
Eggsy and Lancelot (Mark Strong, “Miss Sloane“) in desperation turn to Statesman – the US equivalent organisation – and together with some surprising allies set out to defeat the evil plot to poison all casual drug users.
Subtle this film certainly is not, featuring brash and absurdly unrealistic action scenes that are 90% CGI but – for me at least – enormous fun to watch. As with the first film (and I’m thinking of the grotesquely violent church scene here) the action moves however from ‘edgy’ to “over-the-top/offensive” at times. The ‘burger scene’ and (particularly) the ‘Glastonbury incident’ are the standout moments for all the wrong reasons. I have a theory about how these *might* have come about…
One Mann’s Movies Showcase Theatre
The scene: Matthew Vaughn and Jane Golding are working “The Golden Circle” script at Goldman’s English home.
Vaughn: “OK, so Eggsy is in the tent with Clara and needs to plant the tracking device on her.”
Goldman’s husband Jonathan Ross sticks his head round the door.
Ross: “Hey Guys, I’ve an idea about that. I was on the phone to Wussell Bwand and we came up with a GWEAT idea.”
Vaughn: (rolling his eyes, mutters to himself): “Oh God, not again…”
Ross: “We thought that Eggsy could use his finger to stick the tracker right up her – ahem – ‘lady canal’ and… and… here’s the really great bit… the camera’s gonna be his finger. A camera up the muff! It’ll be weally weally funny!”
Vaughn: “But Jonathan…”.
Goldman nudges him hard.
Goldman (whispering): “Just let it go Matthew… you know what he’s like if he doesn’t get at least a couple of his ideas into the film”.
You can only hope a stunt vagina was used for this scene, else Poppy Delavigne (older sister of Cara) is going to find it very hard to find credible future work. One can only guess what tasteful interlude is being planned for Kingsman 3 – – a prostate-based tracker perhaps?
The film works best when the core team of Taron Egerton, Mark Strong and Colin Firth (yes, Colin Firth!) are together. Jeff Bridges (“Hell or High Water“), Channing Tatum (“Foxcatcher“) and Halle Berry (“Monster’s Ball”) all turn up as key members of ‘Statesman’ – adding star power but not a lot else – together with Pedro Pascal (“The Great Wall“) as ‘Whiskey’…. who I expected to be someone equally famous behind the moustache but wasn’t!
There’s also a very entertaining cameo from a star (no spoilers from me) whose foul-mouthed tirades I found very funny, and who also has the funniest line in the film (playing off one of the most controversial elements of the first film). It’s fair to say though that others I’ve spoken to didn’t think this appearance fitted the film at all.
Julianne Moore makes for an entertaining – if less than credible – villain, as does Bruce Greenwood (“Star Trek: Into Darkness”) as a barely disguised Trump. None of the motivations of the bad ‘uns however support any scrutiny whatsoever: this is very much a “park your brain at the door” film.
I really shouldn’t enjoy this crass, brash, brainless movie fast-food… and I know many have hated it! But my guilty secret is that I really did like it – one of the best nights of unadulterated escapist fun I’ve had since “Baby Driver”. Classy it’s certainly NOT, but I enjoyed this just as much as the original.
The fledgling agent Eggsy (Taron Egerton (“Eddie the Eagle“), curiously called “Eggy” at various points in the film for reasons I didn’t understand) is now the new “Galahad” following the demise in the first film of the original, played by Colin Firth (“Magic in the Moonlight“, “Bridget Jones’ Baby“). But just as he’s getting into his stride the whole Kingsman organisation, now headed by Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as Arthur , is ripped apart by an evil drugs cartel called “The Golden Circle” headed by smiling but deadly Poppy (Juliane Moore, “Still Alice”).
Eggsy and Lancelot (Mark Strong, “Miss Sloane“) in desperation turn to Statesman – the US equivalent organisation – and together with some surprising allies set out to defeat the evil plot to poison all casual drug users.
Subtle this film certainly is not, featuring brash and absurdly unrealistic action scenes that are 90% CGI but – for me at least – enormous fun to watch. As with the first film (and I’m thinking of the grotesquely violent church scene here) the action moves however from ‘edgy’ to “over-the-top/offensive” at times. The ‘burger scene’ and (particularly) the ‘Glastonbury incident’ are the standout moments for all the wrong reasons. I have a theory about how these *might* have come about…
One Mann’s Movies Showcase Theatre
The scene: Matthew Vaughn and Jane Golding are working “The Golden Circle” script at Goldman’s English home.
Vaughn: “OK, so Eggsy is in the tent with Clara and needs to plant the tracking device on her.”
Goldman’s husband Jonathan Ross sticks his head round the door.
Ross: “Hey Guys, I’ve an idea about that. I was on the phone to Wussell Bwand and we came up with a GWEAT idea.”
Vaughn: (rolling his eyes, mutters to himself): “Oh God, not again…”
Ross: “We thought that Eggsy could use his finger to stick the tracker right up her – ahem – ‘lady canal’ and… and… here’s the really great bit… the camera’s gonna be his finger. A camera up the muff! It’ll be weally weally funny!”
Vaughn: “But Jonathan…”.
Goldman nudges him hard.
Goldman (whispering): “Just let it go Matthew… you know what he’s like if he doesn’t get at least a couple of his ideas into the film”.
You can only hope a stunt vagina was used for this scene, else Poppy Delavigne (older sister of Cara) is going to find it very hard to find credible future work. One can only guess what tasteful interlude is being planned for Kingsman 3 – – a prostate-based tracker perhaps?
The film works best when the core team of Taron Egerton, Mark Strong and Colin Firth (yes, Colin Firth!) are together. Jeff Bridges (“Hell or High Water“), Channing Tatum (“Foxcatcher“) and Halle Berry (“Monster’s Ball”) all turn up as key members of ‘Statesman’ – adding star power but not a lot else – together with Pedro Pascal (“The Great Wall“) as ‘Whiskey’…. who I expected to be someone equally famous behind the moustache but wasn’t!
There’s also a very entertaining cameo from a star (no spoilers from me) whose foul-mouthed tirades I found very funny, and who also has the funniest line in the film (playing off one of the most controversial elements of the first film). It’s fair to say though that others I’ve spoken to didn’t think this appearance fitted the film at all.
Julianne Moore makes for an entertaining – if less than credible – villain, as does Bruce Greenwood (“Star Trek: Into Darkness”) as a barely disguised Trump. None of the motivations of the bad ‘uns however support any scrutiny whatsoever: this is very much a “park your brain at the door” film.
I really shouldn’t enjoy this crass, brash, brainless movie fast-food… and I know many have hated it! But my guilty secret is that I really did like it – one of the best nights of unadulterated escapist fun I’ve had since “Baby Driver”. Classy it’s certainly NOT, but I enjoyed this just as much as the original.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Monster Calls (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“I’ll. Be. Right. Here.”
The worst thing about this movie is its title. The second worst thing about this movie is its trailer. Both will either a) put people off seeing it (it succeeded in that with my wife for example) or b) make people conclude it is a ‘nice holiday film to take the kids to’, which is also an horrendous mistake!
This is a crying shame because it is a riveting drama and a superb piece of film-making by the Spaniard J. A. Bayona (“The Impossible”) that may well catapult it already into my top 10 films of 2017. But it is not, I would suggest, a film that is remotely suitable for kids under 10 to see, dealing as it does with terminal illness, bullying and impending doom. For this is a dark (read pitch black) but hauntingly beautiful film.
Lewis MacDougall, in only his second film (after last year’s “Peter Pan”) plays Conor – a young but talented and sensitive artist growing up as a 12 year old in the North of England with his single mum (Felicity Jones). She is suffering from an aggressive form of cancer and is forever medically grasping for a new hope (D’ya see what I did there?). Young Conor believes fervently that each new treatment will be ‘the one’ but the building tension, the lack of sleep and his recurrent nightmares are destroying him mentally and physically. As if this wasn’t enough, his distracted nature is leading to him being seriously bullied at school and there is the added stress of having to live in his grandmother’s pristine and teen-unfriendly house when his mother is hospitalised.
Towering over the nearby graveyard on the hill is an ancient yew tree and Conor is visited after midnight by this “monster” (voiced by Liam Neeson). Is he dreaming, or is it real? The tree dispatches wisdom in the form of three ‘tales’, with the proviso that Conor tell the tree the fourth tale which “must be the truth”.
A tale of grief, guilt and a search for closure, this is a harrowing but rewarding journey for the viewer.
The film is technically outstanding on so many levels:
the art design is superb, with the gorgeous ‘tale animations’ being highly reminiscent of the beautiful ones in “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1”;
the use of sound is brilliant, with sudden silence being used as a weapon with which to assault the senses in one key sequence;
the cinematography by Oscar Faura (“The Imitation Game”) is faultless, capturing both the dreary reality in a Northern winter with the comparative warmth of the strange dream-like sequences;
the music by Fernando Velázquez is used effectively and intelligently to reflect the sombre mood;
the special effects team led by Pau Costa (“The Revenant”, “The Impossible”) shines not just with Neesen’s monster, but with the incorporation of the root and branch effects into the ‘normal’ surroundings.
As the BFG illustrated, having a whole film carried by a young actor is a bit of an ask, but here Lewis MacDougall achieves just that like a seasoned pro. His performance is nothing short of staggering and – although a brave move by the Academy – it would be great to see him nominated for a BAFTA acting award for this.
Confirming her position in the acting top-flight is Felicity Jones, heart-wrenching in her role of the declining mum, and Sigourney Weaver is also excellent as the po-faced but grief-stricken grandmother. Liam Neeson probably didn’t add much by getting dressed up in the mo-cap suit for the tree scenes, but his voice is just perfect as the wise old sage.
The only criticism of what is an absorbing and intelligent script (by Patrick Ness, who also wrote the graphical novel) is the introduction of Conor’s Dad, played by Toby Kebbell (Dr Doom from “The Fantastic 4”), who is literally flown in from LA on a flying visit but whose role is a little superfluous to the plot.
This is exactly what “The BFG” should have been but wasn’t. It draws on a number of potential influences including “Mary Poppins”/”Saving Mr Banks” and “ET”. Wise, clever and a thing of beauty from beginning to end, this is a treat for movie-goers and a highly recommended watch. However, if you have lost someone to “the Big C” be aware that this film could be highly traumatic for you….. or highly cathartic: as I’m not a psychiatrist, I’m really not that sure! Also, if you are of the blubbing kind, take LOTS of tissues: the film features the best use of a digital clock since “Groundhog Day” and if you are not reduced to tears by that scene you are certifiably not human.
This is a crying shame because it is a riveting drama and a superb piece of film-making by the Spaniard J. A. Bayona (“The Impossible”) that may well catapult it already into my top 10 films of 2017. But it is not, I would suggest, a film that is remotely suitable for kids under 10 to see, dealing as it does with terminal illness, bullying and impending doom. For this is a dark (read pitch black) but hauntingly beautiful film.
Lewis MacDougall, in only his second film (after last year’s “Peter Pan”) plays Conor – a young but talented and sensitive artist growing up as a 12 year old in the North of England with his single mum (Felicity Jones). She is suffering from an aggressive form of cancer and is forever medically grasping for a new hope (D’ya see what I did there?). Young Conor believes fervently that each new treatment will be ‘the one’ but the building tension, the lack of sleep and his recurrent nightmares are destroying him mentally and physically. As if this wasn’t enough, his distracted nature is leading to him being seriously bullied at school and there is the added stress of having to live in his grandmother’s pristine and teen-unfriendly house when his mother is hospitalised.
Towering over the nearby graveyard on the hill is an ancient yew tree and Conor is visited after midnight by this “monster” (voiced by Liam Neeson). Is he dreaming, or is it real? The tree dispatches wisdom in the form of three ‘tales’, with the proviso that Conor tell the tree the fourth tale which “must be the truth”.
A tale of grief, guilt and a search for closure, this is a harrowing but rewarding journey for the viewer.
The film is technically outstanding on so many levels:
the art design is superb, with the gorgeous ‘tale animations’ being highly reminiscent of the beautiful ones in “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1”;
the use of sound is brilliant, with sudden silence being used as a weapon with which to assault the senses in one key sequence;
the cinematography by Oscar Faura (“The Imitation Game”) is faultless, capturing both the dreary reality in a Northern winter with the comparative warmth of the strange dream-like sequences;
the music by Fernando Velázquez is used effectively and intelligently to reflect the sombre mood;
the special effects team led by Pau Costa (“The Revenant”, “The Impossible”) shines not just with Neesen’s monster, but with the incorporation of the root and branch effects into the ‘normal’ surroundings.
As the BFG illustrated, having a whole film carried by a young actor is a bit of an ask, but here Lewis MacDougall achieves just that like a seasoned pro. His performance is nothing short of staggering and – although a brave move by the Academy – it would be great to see him nominated for a BAFTA acting award for this.
Confirming her position in the acting top-flight is Felicity Jones, heart-wrenching in her role of the declining mum, and Sigourney Weaver is also excellent as the po-faced but grief-stricken grandmother. Liam Neeson probably didn’t add much by getting dressed up in the mo-cap suit for the tree scenes, but his voice is just perfect as the wise old sage.
The only criticism of what is an absorbing and intelligent script (by Patrick Ness, who also wrote the graphical novel) is the introduction of Conor’s Dad, played by Toby Kebbell (Dr Doom from “The Fantastic 4”), who is literally flown in from LA on a flying visit but whose role is a little superfluous to the plot.
This is exactly what “The BFG” should have been but wasn’t. It draws on a number of potential influences including “Mary Poppins”/”Saving Mr Banks” and “ET”. Wise, clever and a thing of beauty from beginning to end, this is a treat for movie-goers and a highly recommended watch. However, if you have lost someone to “the Big C” be aware that this film could be highly traumatic for you….. or highly cathartic: as I’m not a psychiatrist, I’m really not that sure! Also, if you are of the blubbing kind, take LOTS of tissues: the film features the best use of a digital clock since “Groundhog Day” and if you are not reduced to tears by that scene you are certifiably not human.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Cloud Atlas (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
While I am not familiar with the novel, I was not excited to review the film adaptation of David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas. Though the Screenplay was written and directed by the Wachowskis (The Matrix) and Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run) I did not know exactly what I was getting into. The trailer shows it as an epic sci-fi film crossing the time and lives of several stories and how everything and everyone is connected. Needless to say my curiosity was piqued. But I was nervous because I knew it would take a grand effort to keep this epic and ambitious project from falling flat. And well, I can honestly say that I am not quite sure if the combined effort succeeded.
Allow me to explain. About an hour into the film I had a young film reviewer to my left and I noticed he started to nod his head in approval at each new developing story throughout the film. To my right was a friend of mine, I would consider as an average film viewer, who at this same time I could tell was counting the minutes till the lights came up but felt trapped with nowhere to go but forward. And for me, I can see both sides of these reactions.
The plot is comprised of a multi-narrative of six stories, each with a complete beginning, middle and end. These stories are told from different timelines following a group of souls throughout the ages to show how everything is woven together and the connection between them; From the 1849 slave trader, to a young composer in 1936 Britain, to a 1973 journalist attempting to uncover corruption of the big business ruling class, to a 2012 literary publisher who’s life becomes a daring escape from a geriatric home, to a 2144 Neo-Soul synthetic learning to become human, to a post-apocalyptic tribesman trying to save his world and family… Lost yet? Believe me you will want to focus during the first hour of this film as we are introduced to the sudden shift of timelines. All of the main actors appear as varying characters of significance in every narrative, each with different accents and types of language. It is a bit of an unexpected bother to keep everything straight at first, however if you pay attention it is fairly easy to follow. This first hour is where I feel the film becomes a make or break for those actively thinking about what they are watching and the average movie viewer who is just there to be entertained and see the new Tom Hanks (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) or Halle Berry (Perfect Stanger) movie. For those who make it through that first hour still engaged, the film moves along at a steady pace and provides everything from romance to action that keeps you guessing and intrigued at what is next to come.
The Wachowskis and Tykwer do an outstanding job of visually fleshing out each timeline in its own visual style, especially the futuristic ones, which subtlety organize each narrative for the viewer. Additionally, there are so many talented actors in this film and it is somewhat fascinating to try and pick them out throughout the film. It is almost like a giant game of Where’s Waldo on screen as the makeup and special effects artists do a fantastic job of making the actors fit each character in every timeline. In fact, during the fourth or fifth timeline a lady in my row asked her partner if the man on screen was Forrest Gump, which was surprising because Hanks was the easiest character to pick out among them all.
Tom Hanks delivers one of his better performances in years. We watch his character’s soul transition from a sinister and vile doctor to a tribesman making the righteous choice while struggling with that inkling of evil that is the devil within us all. It was refreshing to see Hanks play parts that were not just an “everyman” that he has played in recent years.
Halle Berry’s performance is mostly average in her parts with the exception of 1973 journalist role where she is the main protagonist. Hugo Weaving channels a bit of his Agent Smith role from The Matrix as he plays a villain throughout the timelines. Hugh Grant (Love Actually) makes unexpected soild appearances throughout the timelines. With Jim Sturgess (One Day), James D’Arcy (Mansfield Park) and Ben Whishaw (who is the new Q in the upcoming James Bond film Skyfall) rounding out the cast with a young contrast to the already heavy acting handled by the bigger names of this film. Each of these young actors hold’s their own against their older more notable counterparts. Whishaw’s performance as the lead in the 1936 composer role is especially noteworthy.
The other stand out performance in the film comes from Jim Broadbent best known in the states as Professor Slughorn in the Harry Potter Films. His performance in the 1936 composer and 2012 literary publisher are excellent. The Publisher story was my favorite timeline throughout the film. Not only did it deliver some much needed comic relief to an emotionally engaging and heavy film, but it also made me care the most about the elderly characters trying to escape the clutches of the geriatric prison of a nursing home. Unfortunately, other than the aforementioned comic relief this timeline seemed the most unnecessary to the overarching story at hand.
When I left the film and talked it over with my friend I was indifferent to the film. It was not great, it was not bad either. As my friend described it, it was a movie that was trying too hard. We agreed that somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but we were not sure if we watched it.
However as the days have passed I have found myself thinking about the stories constantly. More specifically about how the main protagonist played by a different actor in each narrative has the same birthmark of a shooting star that in some way symbolizes some universal soul encompassing a new shell of a body in each timeline. Like some kind of reincarnation of that soul is fighting the same revolution throughout the ages against the powerful class and illusion of natural order. Additionally how each of the central characters found themselves connected with the main characters in the stories that preceded them through some kind of medium; whether it was by an old journal, or love letters, or a written story, or film, or message of hope. These subtle insights of growth and change for this main soul leaping into a new life in each timeline has caused me to examine our world and how we as people can be truly connected to one another not only today, but throughout the ages. I want to view the film again and am inspired to read the novel in some sort of effort to better understand these concepts.
Nevertheless as a film that is almost three hours long it does its best to be an epic sci-fi film and give something for everyone. And while it succeeds in many aspects of feel, it also falls short in aspects that are probably best accomplished in a literary form. As I said above, somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but I am not sure if I watched it. Or maybe I am not intelligent enough to comprehend it. Because of that I can only give it an average score. Though I believe if you ask me after a second viewing, I may be inclined to raise it.
Allow me to explain. About an hour into the film I had a young film reviewer to my left and I noticed he started to nod his head in approval at each new developing story throughout the film. To my right was a friend of mine, I would consider as an average film viewer, who at this same time I could tell was counting the minutes till the lights came up but felt trapped with nowhere to go but forward. And for me, I can see both sides of these reactions.
The plot is comprised of a multi-narrative of six stories, each with a complete beginning, middle and end. These stories are told from different timelines following a group of souls throughout the ages to show how everything is woven together and the connection between them; From the 1849 slave trader, to a young composer in 1936 Britain, to a 1973 journalist attempting to uncover corruption of the big business ruling class, to a 2012 literary publisher who’s life becomes a daring escape from a geriatric home, to a 2144 Neo-Soul synthetic learning to become human, to a post-apocalyptic tribesman trying to save his world and family… Lost yet? Believe me you will want to focus during the first hour of this film as we are introduced to the sudden shift of timelines. All of the main actors appear as varying characters of significance in every narrative, each with different accents and types of language. It is a bit of an unexpected bother to keep everything straight at first, however if you pay attention it is fairly easy to follow. This first hour is where I feel the film becomes a make or break for those actively thinking about what they are watching and the average movie viewer who is just there to be entertained and see the new Tom Hanks (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) or Halle Berry (Perfect Stanger) movie. For those who make it through that first hour still engaged, the film moves along at a steady pace and provides everything from romance to action that keeps you guessing and intrigued at what is next to come.
The Wachowskis and Tykwer do an outstanding job of visually fleshing out each timeline in its own visual style, especially the futuristic ones, which subtlety organize each narrative for the viewer. Additionally, there are so many talented actors in this film and it is somewhat fascinating to try and pick them out throughout the film. It is almost like a giant game of Where’s Waldo on screen as the makeup and special effects artists do a fantastic job of making the actors fit each character in every timeline. In fact, during the fourth or fifth timeline a lady in my row asked her partner if the man on screen was Forrest Gump, which was surprising because Hanks was the easiest character to pick out among them all.
Tom Hanks delivers one of his better performances in years. We watch his character’s soul transition from a sinister and vile doctor to a tribesman making the righteous choice while struggling with that inkling of evil that is the devil within us all. It was refreshing to see Hanks play parts that were not just an “everyman” that he has played in recent years.
Halle Berry’s performance is mostly average in her parts with the exception of 1973 journalist role where she is the main protagonist. Hugo Weaving channels a bit of his Agent Smith role from The Matrix as he plays a villain throughout the timelines. Hugh Grant (Love Actually) makes unexpected soild appearances throughout the timelines. With Jim Sturgess (One Day), James D’Arcy (Mansfield Park) and Ben Whishaw (who is the new Q in the upcoming James Bond film Skyfall) rounding out the cast with a young contrast to the already heavy acting handled by the bigger names of this film. Each of these young actors hold’s their own against their older more notable counterparts. Whishaw’s performance as the lead in the 1936 composer role is especially noteworthy.
The other stand out performance in the film comes from Jim Broadbent best known in the states as Professor Slughorn in the Harry Potter Films. His performance in the 1936 composer and 2012 literary publisher are excellent. The Publisher story was my favorite timeline throughout the film. Not only did it deliver some much needed comic relief to an emotionally engaging and heavy film, but it also made me care the most about the elderly characters trying to escape the clutches of the geriatric prison of a nursing home. Unfortunately, other than the aforementioned comic relief this timeline seemed the most unnecessary to the overarching story at hand.
When I left the film and talked it over with my friend I was indifferent to the film. It was not great, it was not bad either. As my friend described it, it was a movie that was trying too hard. We agreed that somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but we were not sure if we watched it.
However as the days have passed I have found myself thinking about the stories constantly. More specifically about how the main protagonist played by a different actor in each narrative has the same birthmark of a shooting star that in some way symbolizes some universal soul encompassing a new shell of a body in each timeline. Like some kind of reincarnation of that soul is fighting the same revolution throughout the ages against the powerful class and illusion of natural order. Additionally how each of the central characters found themselves connected with the main characters in the stories that preceded them through some kind of medium; whether it was by an old journal, or love letters, or a written story, or film, or message of hope. These subtle insights of growth and change for this main soul leaping into a new life in each timeline has caused me to examine our world and how we as people can be truly connected to one another not only today, but throughout the ages. I want to view the film again and am inspired to read the novel in some sort of effort to better understand these concepts.
Nevertheless as a film that is almost three hours long it does its best to be an epic sci-fi film and give something for everyone. And while it succeeds in many aspects of feel, it also falls short in aspects that are probably best accomplished in a literary form. As I said above, somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but I am not sure if I watched it. Or maybe I am not intelligent enough to comprehend it. Because of that I can only give it an average score. Though I believe if you ask me after a second viewing, I may be inclined to raise it.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Oh. My. This was always going to be a tough one for me, and I've been thinking long and hard about how on earth I was going to review this. I love the original, anyone who even remotely enjoys it would be able to sing you at least one of the songs, and therein lies one of the problems. Would I have had a different opinion about some of the elements had I not seen the original so many times? After a lot of contemplating I think the answer in most cases is no.
Note: I went to see this for a second time so I'm going to edit what I previously wrote up as I go because on second viewing it was better. Once the initial shock and annoyance had passed after seeing it the first time it was much easier to watch for the second time.
Remaking something that's peak Disney has so many issues, recasting roles, changing social views and cultural sensitivities, are probably the biggest ones.
Let's talk about the (blue) elephant in the room... although I guess that phrase isn't really accurate as we all want to talk about it. Oh Genie, my Genie. I don't think anyone would have been able to fill that lamp the way Robin Williams did, he was larger than life and brought such a sense of fun whenever he did roles like this. The man is a comedic legend. Recasting this was always going to be difficult, and honestly, I don't know if there's anyone I would have been happy with taking over the mantle.
When I found out that Will Smith was on board I wasn't completely put off. On paper he's got everything you'd need for this role. He had one of two choices, stick to the original faithfully or take it your own way. I just don't think Smith actually had a choice though, he was going to have to do a reinterpretation of the role, but how could you ever follow Williams?
The thing I'm most surprised about with Genie is just how bad the CGI is. It's not like this is something Disney are unfamiliar with. Why did some of it even need to be CGId? I obviously don't know the ins and outs of these techniques or options, but if people can make Robbie Coltrane look larger than life in Harry Potter without mucking it up then why aren't they smurfing Will Smith up and doing the same?
Casting across the rest of the film wasn't such an epic task, Mena Massoud as Aladdin and Navid Negahban as the Sultan hit exactly the right spot. I had issues with Jafar, that's nothing to do with Marwan Kenzari's acting which was very good, but it was the fact that in my head Jafar should have been older. (Dream casting: Ben Kingsley.) I'm sure I won't be popular saying this but I didn't really like Naomi Scott as Jasmine, I don't think she brought enough sass to the role, I also felt that some of the new inclusions into the film around Jasmine negatively affected my view of her.
By far and away my favourite from the live action cast was Nasim Pedrad as Dalia, Jasmine's lady in waiting. I don't know why they felt the need to bring this character in, but I'm really glad they did. She's funny and a welcome break in some scenes. She completely outshines Jasmine as almost every point in the film... actually, I retract the word "almost". While I might not be happy about part of her character's story (ask me for the spoilers) she was definitely the best added extra in the film.
Our group of sidekicks, Abu, Iago, Rajah and Carpet all come out with varying degrees of success. Abu wasn't entirely lucky with the CGI and didn't get such a fun part as before. Iago was much more bird-like than previously which meant less actual talking so I have to wonder why they hired Alan Tudyk if they weren't going to use him properly. Rajah while less quizzical than in the original was entertaining and luckily wasn't mutilated by the CGI. Carpet though, I loved Carpet. He was super cute and absolutely adorable with Abu.
I'm not going to go over every change they made to the original, but one tweak particularly bugged me. They change the way that Aladdin gets out of the cave of wonders. The verbal trickery that Aladdin uses in the original is gone and they switch it out for a much more deceitful moment. The idea isn't as clever as its predecessor and also means that later in the film when Aladdin tricks Jafar you don't get that same connection, watching Genie working out what was going on was painful viewing.
I can't really put off talking about the songs anymore.
As trailers and sneak peeks appeared online I became increasingly nervous about the songs. Prince Ali seemed to be less upbeat than before, and while the sequence looked like it had potential all of it together didn't feel as vibrant. I appreciate that they tried to keep all those little Genie added extra in but it felt like they went with a "safe" option.
I enjoy Will Smith's singing, but I'm not a fan of it in this. I don't think the change in style is suited to these songs. I've seen people saying about how he's rapping in it... but I wouldn't have identified it as rapping. If anything it felt like they went "you should get some rapping in there, but we're Disney so tone it down... a lot."
We get a new offering on the soundtrack in the shape of Speechless, Jasmine's empowering song. I like the song, it certainly has the Disney vibe, and Scott sings it beautifully... but it didn't give me those goosebumps that I expect from power songs. I probably would have given the song a pass had it not been for the way it was included in the film. The frozen scenes with Jasmine dramatically moving in and out of the cast and set... ugh... that just didn't work for me.
Massoud had originally given me so much hope for the music when I heard One Jump Ahead at the beginning. It was excellent, and throughout the film I loved his singing.
Here's where my opinion changed a bit after my second visit... the songs weren't all as bad as I'd felt after the first viewing. I still didn't enjoy Genie's offering, but Aladdin and Jasmine both felt like an excellent choice. The main thing that didn't change was the fact that I didn't feel the songs fit well into the scenes. Part of the draw of Disney is the toe-tapping singalong vibe you get from the music, and there was a lack of pizzaz in most of the sequences that left my toes untapped.
I could probably go on for a very long time about this film. (I already have.) Ultimately, I don't think it's an improvement on the original, I don't think these modern rehashes really add a lot when you have to adjust for the modern culture. I'm not saying that you shouldn't take the changing times into consideration, I just think you should do it in a way that doesn't just come across as trying to score points with the audience to prove how "with it" you are. I also don't think that coming up with 30 minutes of extra footage is ever a sensible idea. If that's what you want to do then perhaps you need to really mix things up and come up with a whole new concept for the story.
What you should do
You're either a Disney nut or you're not. Personally, I would recommend staying at home and having a binge of old Disney classics, starting with the one true Genie.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Could I get Genie powers without the itty-bitty living space?
Note: I went to see this for a second time so I'm going to edit what I previously wrote up as I go because on second viewing it was better. Once the initial shock and annoyance had passed after seeing it the first time it was much easier to watch for the second time.
Remaking something that's peak Disney has so many issues, recasting roles, changing social views and cultural sensitivities, are probably the biggest ones.
Let's talk about the (blue) elephant in the room... although I guess that phrase isn't really accurate as we all want to talk about it. Oh Genie, my Genie. I don't think anyone would have been able to fill that lamp the way Robin Williams did, he was larger than life and brought such a sense of fun whenever he did roles like this. The man is a comedic legend. Recasting this was always going to be difficult, and honestly, I don't know if there's anyone I would have been happy with taking over the mantle.
When I found out that Will Smith was on board I wasn't completely put off. On paper he's got everything you'd need for this role. He had one of two choices, stick to the original faithfully or take it your own way. I just don't think Smith actually had a choice though, he was going to have to do a reinterpretation of the role, but how could you ever follow Williams?
The thing I'm most surprised about with Genie is just how bad the CGI is. It's not like this is something Disney are unfamiliar with. Why did some of it even need to be CGId? I obviously don't know the ins and outs of these techniques or options, but if people can make Robbie Coltrane look larger than life in Harry Potter without mucking it up then why aren't they smurfing Will Smith up and doing the same?
Casting across the rest of the film wasn't such an epic task, Mena Massoud as Aladdin and Navid Negahban as the Sultan hit exactly the right spot. I had issues with Jafar, that's nothing to do with Marwan Kenzari's acting which was very good, but it was the fact that in my head Jafar should have been older. (Dream casting: Ben Kingsley.) I'm sure I won't be popular saying this but I didn't really like Naomi Scott as Jasmine, I don't think she brought enough sass to the role, I also felt that some of the new inclusions into the film around Jasmine negatively affected my view of her.
By far and away my favourite from the live action cast was Nasim Pedrad as Dalia, Jasmine's lady in waiting. I don't know why they felt the need to bring this character in, but I'm really glad they did. She's funny and a welcome break in some scenes. She completely outshines Jasmine as almost every point in the film... actually, I retract the word "almost". While I might not be happy about part of her character's story (ask me for the spoilers) she was definitely the best added extra in the film.
Our group of sidekicks, Abu, Iago, Rajah and Carpet all come out with varying degrees of success. Abu wasn't entirely lucky with the CGI and didn't get such a fun part as before. Iago was much more bird-like than previously which meant less actual talking so I have to wonder why they hired Alan Tudyk if they weren't going to use him properly. Rajah while less quizzical than in the original was entertaining and luckily wasn't mutilated by the CGI. Carpet though, I loved Carpet. He was super cute and absolutely adorable with Abu.
I'm not going to go over every change they made to the original, but one tweak particularly bugged me. They change the way that Aladdin gets out of the cave of wonders. The verbal trickery that Aladdin uses in the original is gone and they switch it out for a much more deceitful moment. The idea isn't as clever as its predecessor and also means that later in the film when Aladdin tricks Jafar you don't get that same connection, watching Genie working out what was going on was painful viewing.
I can't really put off talking about the songs anymore.
As trailers and sneak peeks appeared online I became increasingly nervous about the songs. Prince Ali seemed to be less upbeat than before, and while the sequence looked like it had potential all of it together didn't feel as vibrant. I appreciate that they tried to keep all those little Genie added extra in but it felt like they went with a "safe" option.
I enjoy Will Smith's singing, but I'm not a fan of it in this. I don't think the change in style is suited to these songs. I've seen people saying about how he's rapping in it... but I wouldn't have identified it as rapping. If anything it felt like they went "you should get some rapping in there, but we're Disney so tone it down... a lot."
We get a new offering on the soundtrack in the shape of Speechless, Jasmine's empowering song. I like the song, it certainly has the Disney vibe, and Scott sings it beautifully... but it didn't give me those goosebumps that I expect from power songs. I probably would have given the song a pass had it not been for the way it was included in the film. The frozen scenes with Jasmine dramatically moving in and out of the cast and set... ugh... that just didn't work for me.
Massoud had originally given me so much hope for the music when I heard One Jump Ahead at the beginning. It was excellent, and throughout the film I loved his singing.
Here's where my opinion changed a bit after my second visit... the songs weren't all as bad as I'd felt after the first viewing. I still didn't enjoy Genie's offering, but Aladdin and Jasmine both felt like an excellent choice. The main thing that didn't change was the fact that I didn't feel the songs fit well into the scenes. Part of the draw of Disney is the toe-tapping singalong vibe you get from the music, and there was a lack of pizzaz in most of the sequences that left my toes untapped.
I could probably go on for a very long time about this film. (I already have.) Ultimately, I don't think it's an improvement on the original, I don't think these modern rehashes really add a lot when you have to adjust for the modern culture. I'm not saying that you shouldn't take the changing times into consideration, I just think you should do it in a way that doesn't just come across as trying to score points with the audience to prove how "with it" you are. I also don't think that coming up with 30 minutes of extra footage is ever a sensible idea. If that's what you want to do then perhaps you need to really mix things up and come up with a whole new concept for the story.
What you should do
You're either a Disney nut or you're not. Personally, I would recommend staying at home and having a binge of old Disney classics, starting with the one true Genie.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Could I get Genie powers without the itty-bitty living space?
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015) in Movies
Jun 5, 2019
The Force is strong in this one...
Like so many of us, I had theorised what would happen in this movie based on the influx of teaser trailers online, and I'm happy to say, I was wrong on nearly everything! I like being surprised, and this film was just that. A very pleasant surprise. It's Star Wars, like Star Wars should be. Not too heavy on the CGI, plenty of action interlaced with character-driven dialogue and sub-plots, and yes, someone says "I have a bad feeling about this..." which is just ace!
So, the story. (No spoilers here, promise!) We join the action some 30 years after partying with the Ewoks on Endor. The Empire is no more, yet, like an evil phoenix, The First Order has risen from its ashes and is doing much the same thing—being awful to everyone and trying to rule the galaxy. Same old, same old.
There are plenty of new faces—the three main ones effectively being modern-day retellings of our old favourites. First up is Oscar Isaac's excellent Poe Dameron, who is this year's Han Solo. A hot-shot rebel fighter pilot, with rogue-ish good looks, a cheeky grin, and wise-cracking dialogue.
Then, we have the Stormtrooper with a conscience, played by John Boyega. A really good performance by him, and despite his character’s beginnings, it doesn't take long for you to genuinely care what happens to him. He's this year's Luke Skywalker, definitely.
And finally, there's the mysterious Rey, the tough-as-nails tomboy who's hotter than you first realise, brought to life by the uber-talented, destined-for-great-things, Daisy Ridley. Not much is known about who she is, but she's this year's Princess Leia, without a doubt.
And that was the first thing that really struck a chord with me—how the film acknowledges the original characters, but gives them a twist for the newer, younger audience. The comparisons are immediate and obvious, but they work. Instead of the kick-ass princess, you have the hard-done-by street kid... instead of the teenager dreaming of escaping his dead-end life, you have one who struggles to accept he's not meant for the exciting one he has. Kids today will relate to these things, yet the film manages to keep the essence of what made the main characters from the classic films so memorable.
We also have the new lovable droid, BB-8, who, like R2-D2 so many years ago, unwittingly finds itself with a garbled message in its memory banks, and in the possession of one of our heroes.
In much the same way that Episode IV didn’t hang about getting Darth Vader on the screen, it's not long before we're treated to our first look at the big bad—Kylo Ren. Let's run through the checklist:
• Looks cool wearing black? Check.
• Masked, with scary voice? Check.
• Mean? Check.
So, Mr. Ren starts out doing everything we would expect, which is nice. We know he's working with The First Order, we know he's looking for something... so far, so Star Wars.
The film moves along at a good pace. Plenty of action and fighting, slowed down by great interaction between the main cast where needed. Then we start getting drip-fed the old-timers, which is where the fanboy in you will get really excited. We first get a look of Han Solo and Chewbacca, which we already knew from the trailers, when Han says, "Chewy, we're home." Harrison Ford steps back into the role like putting on an old pair of shoes—a little awkward at first, but you soon remember how comfortable they are, and you're off and running in no time. It's almost like he's not played any other part since 1983 (and after Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I bet sometimes Mr. Ford wishes that were the case!). Accompanied by his long-time friend, he effortlessly goes through the motions as the scoundrel looking to make some money, but always ending up owing someone more than he has.
It's not long before a twist of fate puts him and Chewy alongside our new heroes, and they're on their way to see another familiar face, Princess Leia. Except she's not a Princess anymore, she's the General of the Resistance. I won't say too much about her, as her parts in the film are integral to the main storyline, and I don't want to ruin it. Suffice to say, like any couple reuniting after 30 years, her and Han are a joy to watch on screen together.
I don't want to delve into the storyline too much, because a) you've probably pieced together the gist of it from all the trailers, and b) it's hard to do without telling you things you won't know if you haven't already seen it. So I'll leave it there, but will finish by saying it's a pleasure from start to finish, it cues up the inevitable sequels well, and it does nothing more than what it should do—it gives you a Star Wars experience that leaves you wanting to watch it again the moment it finishes.
So, the downsides. There aren't many, but, for me, there are some. They don't take away from the movie as a whole, but they detracted from the experience enough to make them worth mentioning, so here goes.
Princess/General Leia - I'm sorry, but poor Carrie Fisher has had so much Botox, I genuinely thought it was a different actress when she first appeared on camera. We see her go through an emotional reunion, some heartache, some humorous banter, some thrilling, edge-of-the-seat action, and a nail-biting, jaw-dropping finale... and not once did her expression change! Probably because it couldn't. She's the only one who looked like they were struggling to revive their character, because she didn't look like a natural, older version of herself… she looked like she was trying to be a younger version of herself, and it made me not want to see her as much as other characters.
Kylo Ren - This guy starts out as being awesome. His mask is suitably evil, his voice is menacing, his lightsabre is just brilliant… But then he takes his mask off. He's doing something (which I won't detail, but is another obvious and much-appreciated nod to the film's predecessors) and he just takes off his mask. Now, no disrespect to Adam Driver, but... have you seen Harry Potter? Well, Kylo Ren, without his mask, kinda looks like he's related in some distant, in-bred way, to Neville Longbottom. He continues with his evil gestures and scary intentions, but without the mask, you just kinda think... Really? Am I meant to be scared here? When I was a kid, Darth Vader terrified the hell out of me! This guy... you could probably flush his head and steal his lunch money, if he doesn't force-choke you beforehand.
I think he’s another Hayden Christensen—horribly miscast for an important role that could’ve defined the right actor’s career. Let's hope it doesn't end up ruining it for him. Should've kept the mask on, Kylo!
Captain Phasma - The name might not mean much to casual fans, but I’m referring to the chrome Stormtrooper who has inexplicably developed somewhat of a cult following since their appearance in the trailers. They’re the tall, imposing, assumed leader of the Stormtroopers, and certainly looks the part. However, that part is so insignificant, it’s like it was written in as an after-thought. The character will apparently play a more significant role in later films, but that’s hardly the point. We first see him at the beginning, and they’re all evil and shooty, which is fine. But then we see him only a couple of times after that and, at one point, he’s taken hostage in possibly the most unimposing, least-threatening way imaginable, and he just goes along with it. What the hell?! Oh, and I say “He”, but the character is actually played by a woman—Gwendoline Christie, the tall, sword-wielding blonde from Game of Thrones. Anyway…
The final thing that annoyed me a little bit is tough to talk about, because it's riddled with spoilers. But I shall simply say this: the way a certain character (who I haven't mentioned previously) was handled could've been done so much better than it was. That's it. I'll say no more. Watch the film, then read this again. You'll know what I mean.
So, to sum up. This is a great addition to the franchise, no doubt. But, forgetting it's Star Wars for a moment, it's simply a great film. It provides everything you would want from this genre, and it leaves you wanting more at the end (with a clear indication it's going to provide it at some point in the future). Now go. Enjoy. Even if you don't like Star Wars, it's worth a watch. Though I'm pretty certain after seeing it, you'll want to watch the others.
So, the story. (No spoilers here, promise!) We join the action some 30 years after partying with the Ewoks on Endor. The Empire is no more, yet, like an evil phoenix, The First Order has risen from its ashes and is doing much the same thing—being awful to everyone and trying to rule the galaxy. Same old, same old.
There are plenty of new faces—the three main ones effectively being modern-day retellings of our old favourites. First up is Oscar Isaac's excellent Poe Dameron, who is this year's Han Solo. A hot-shot rebel fighter pilot, with rogue-ish good looks, a cheeky grin, and wise-cracking dialogue.
Then, we have the Stormtrooper with a conscience, played by John Boyega. A really good performance by him, and despite his character’s beginnings, it doesn't take long for you to genuinely care what happens to him. He's this year's Luke Skywalker, definitely.
And finally, there's the mysterious Rey, the tough-as-nails tomboy who's hotter than you first realise, brought to life by the uber-talented, destined-for-great-things, Daisy Ridley. Not much is known about who she is, but she's this year's Princess Leia, without a doubt.
And that was the first thing that really struck a chord with me—how the film acknowledges the original characters, but gives them a twist for the newer, younger audience. The comparisons are immediate and obvious, but they work. Instead of the kick-ass princess, you have the hard-done-by street kid... instead of the teenager dreaming of escaping his dead-end life, you have one who struggles to accept he's not meant for the exciting one he has. Kids today will relate to these things, yet the film manages to keep the essence of what made the main characters from the classic films so memorable.
We also have the new lovable droid, BB-8, who, like R2-D2 so many years ago, unwittingly finds itself with a garbled message in its memory banks, and in the possession of one of our heroes.
In much the same way that Episode IV didn’t hang about getting Darth Vader on the screen, it's not long before we're treated to our first look at the big bad—Kylo Ren. Let's run through the checklist:
• Looks cool wearing black? Check.
• Masked, with scary voice? Check.
• Mean? Check.
So, Mr. Ren starts out doing everything we would expect, which is nice. We know he's working with The First Order, we know he's looking for something... so far, so Star Wars.
The film moves along at a good pace. Plenty of action and fighting, slowed down by great interaction between the main cast where needed. Then we start getting drip-fed the old-timers, which is where the fanboy in you will get really excited. We first get a look of Han Solo and Chewbacca, which we already knew from the trailers, when Han says, "Chewy, we're home." Harrison Ford steps back into the role like putting on an old pair of shoes—a little awkward at first, but you soon remember how comfortable they are, and you're off and running in no time. It's almost like he's not played any other part since 1983 (and after Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I bet sometimes Mr. Ford wishes that were the case!). Accompanied by his long-time friend, he effortlessly goes through the motions as the scoundrel looking to make some money, but always ending up owing someone more than he has.
It's not long before a twist of fate puts him and Chewy alongside our new heroes, and they're on their way to see another familiar face, Princess Leia. Except she's not a Princess anymore, she's the General of the Resistance. I won't say too much about her, as her parts in the film are integral to the main storyline, and I don't want to ruin it. Suffice to say, like any couple reuniting after 30 years, her and Han are a joy to watch on screen together.
I don't want to delve into the storyline too much, because a) you've probably pieced together the gist of it from all the trailers, and b) it's hard to do without telling you things you won't know if you haven't already seen it. So I'll leave it there, but will finish by saying it's a pleasure from start to finish, it cues up the inevitable sequels well, and it does nothing more than what it should do—it gives you a Star Wars experience that leaves you wanting to watch it again the moment it finishes.
So, the downsides. There aren't many, but, for me, there are some. They don't take away from the movie as a whole, but they detracted from the experience enough to make them worth mentioning, so here goes.
Princess/General Leia - I'm sorry, but poor Carrie Fisher has had so much Botox, I genuinely thought it was a different actress when she first appeared on camera. We see her go through an emotional reunion, some heartache, some humorous banter, some thrilling, edge-of-the-seat action, and a nail-biting, jaw-dropping finale... and not once did her expression change! Probably because it couldn't. She's the only one who looked like they were struggling to revive their character, because she didn't look like a natural, older version of herself… she looked like she was trying to be a younger version of herself, and it made me not want to see her as much as other characters.
Kylo Ren - This guy starts out as being awesome. His mask is suitably evil, his voice is menacing, his lightsabre is just brilliant… But then he takes his mask off. He's doing something (which I won't detail, but is another obvious and much-appreciated nod to the film's predecessors) and he just takes off his mask. Now, no disrespect to Adam Driver, but... have you seen Harry Potter? Well, Kylo Ren, without his mask, kinda looks like he's related in some distant, in-bred way, to Neville Longbottom. He continues with his evil gestures and scary intentions, but without the mask, you just kinda think... Really? Am I meant to be scared here? When I was a kid, Darth Vader terrified the hell out of me! This guy... you could probably flush his head and steal his lunch money, if he doesn't force-choke you beforehand.
I think he’s another Hayden Christensen—horribly miscast for an important role that could’ve defined the right actor’s career. Let's hope it doesn't end up ruining it for him. Should've kept the mask on, Kylo!
Captain Phasma - The name might not mean much to casual fans, but I’m referring to the chrome Stormtrooper who has inexplicably developed somewhat of a cult following since their appearance in the trailers. They’re the tall, imposing, assumed leader of the Stormtroopers, and certainly looks the part. However, that part is so insignificant, it’s like it was written in as an after-thought. The character will apparently play a more significant role in later films, but that’s hardly the point. We first see him at the beginning, and they’re all evil and shooty, which is fine. But then we see him only a couple of times after that and, at one point, he’s taken hostage in possibly the most unimposing, least-threatening way imaginable, and he just goes along with it. What the hell?! Oh, and I say “He”, but the character is actually played by a woman—Gwendoline Christie, the tall, sword-wielding blonde from Game of Thrones. Anyway…
The final thing that annoyed me a little bit is tough to talk about, because it's riddled with spoilers. But I shall simply say this: the way a certain character (who I haven't mentioned previously) was handled could've been done so much better than it was. That's it. I'll say no more. Watch the film, then read this again. You'll know what I mean.
So, to sum up. This is a great addition to the franchise, no doubt. But, forgetting it's Star Wars for a moment, it's simply a great film. It provides everything you would want from this genre, and it leaves you wanting more at the end (with a clear indication it's going to provide it at some point in the future). Now go. Enjoy. Even if you don't like Star Wars, it's worth a watch. Though I'm pretty certain after seeing it, you'll want to watch the others.